%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYN217-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8046.5625MB
% OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Sep 24 03:23:24 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.36s 0.50s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.36s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 25 ( 13 unt; 0 nHn; 15 RR)
% Number of literals : 47 ( 0 equ; 25 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 42 ( 22 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(rule_126,axiom,
( ~ s1(X3)
| ~ q0(X1,X2)
| s1(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',rule_126) ).
cnf(rule_125,axiom,
( ~ p0(X1,X1)
| s1(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',rule_125) ).
cnf(axiom_17,axiom,
q0(X1,d),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',axiom_17) ).
cnf(axiom_14,axiom,
p0(b,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',axiom_14) ).
cnf(rule_133,axiom,
( ~ m0(X4,X3,X1)
| ~ s1(X3)
| ~ p0(X2,X2)
| l2(X1,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',rule_133) ).
cnf(axiom_19,axiom,
m0(X1,d,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',axiom_19) ).
cnf(prove_this,negated_conjecture,
~ l2(b,b),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_this) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ s1(X3)
| ~ q0(X1,X2)
| s1(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_126]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ p0(X1,X1)
| s1(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_125]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ s1(X3)
| ~ q0(X1,X2)
| s1(X1) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
q0(X1,d),
axiom_17 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ p0(X1,X1)
| s1(X1) ),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
p0(b,X1),
axiom_14 ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ m0(X4,X3,X1)
| ~ s1(X3)
| ~ p0(X2,X2)
| l2(X1,X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_133]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ s1(X2)
| s1(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
s1(b),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ m0(X4,X3,X1)
| ~ s1(X3)
| ~ p0(X2,X2)
| l2(X1,X1) ),
c_0_13 ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
s1(X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ m0(X3,X4,X1)
| ~ p0(X2,X2)
| l2(X1,X1) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17])]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,axiom,
m0(X1,d,X2),
axiom_19 ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
~ l2(b,b),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_this]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
( ~ p0(X2,X2)
| l2(X1,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
~ l2(b,b),
c_0_20 ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
l2(X1,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_23])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SYN217-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 10:45:57 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.42 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.36/0.50 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.36/0.50 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.36/0.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.36/0.50 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.36/0.50 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.50 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.50 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.50 % new_bool_3 with pid 2665295 completed with status 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.36/0.50 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.36/0.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.36/0.50 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.36/0.50 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.50 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.36/0.50 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.36/0.50 % Search class: FHUNM-FSLM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.36/0.50 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.36/0.50 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.50 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2665299 completed with status 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.36/0.50 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.36/0.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.36/0.50 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.36/0.50 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.50 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.36/0.50 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.36/0.50 % Search class: FHUNM-FSLM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.36/0.50 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.36/0.50 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.50 % Preprocessing time : 0.007 s
% 0.36/0.50
% 0.36/0.50 % Proof found!
% 0.36/0.50 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.36/0.50 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.36/0.50 % Parsed axioms : 369
% 0.36/0.50 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 55
% 0.36/0.50 % Initial clauses : 314
% 0.36/0.50 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 5
% 0.36/0.50 % Initial clauses in saturation : 309
% 0.36/0.50 % Processed clauses : 533
% 0.36/0.50 % ...of these trivial : 86
% 0.36/0.50 % ...subsumed : 8
% 0.36/0.50 % ...remaining for further processing : 439
% 0.36/0.50 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Backward-subsumed : 30
% 0.36/0.50 % Backward-rewritten : 158
% 0.36/0.50 % Generated clauses : 540
% 0.36/0.50 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 366
% 0.36/0.50 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Paramodulations : 540
% 0.36/0.50 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % NegExts : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Total rewrite steps : 536
% 0.36/0.50 % ...of those cached : 307
% 0.36/0.50 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.50 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.50 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.50 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.50 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.50 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.50 % Current number of processed clauses : 251
% 0.36/0.50 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 139
% 0.36/0.50 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Non-unit-clauses : 112
% 0.36/0.50 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 93
% 0.36/0.50 % ...number of literals in the above : 346
% 0.36/0.50 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Current number of archived clauses : 188
% 0.36/0.50 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 4482
% 0.36/0.50 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3924
% 0.36/0.50 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 32
% 0.36/0.50 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 480
% 0.36/0.50 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % BW rewrite match attempts : 233
% 0.36/0.50 % BW rewrite match successes : 138
% 0.36/0.50 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.36/0.50 % Termbank termtop insertions : 16462
% 0.36/0.50 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1535
% 0.36/0.50
% 0.36/0.50 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.36/0.50 % User time : 0.040 s
% 0.36/0.50 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.36/0.50 % Total time : 0.046 s
% 0.36/0.50 % Maximum resident set size: 4472 pages
% 0.36/0.50
% 0.36/0.50 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.36/0.50 % User time : 0.048 s
% 0.36/0.50 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.36/0.50 % Total time : 0.059 s
% 0.36/0.50 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.36/0.50 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------